Fashion requirements dictate that women maintain a varied collection of shoes for wardrobe compatibility. The expense in meeting this need has escalated dramatically with the extreme price rise in the basic raw materials generally employed in shoe manufacture. Expense and fashion aside, women's shoes have long been associated with a relatively high level of discomfort. In part this is a result of mass production. Standardized sizes do not fit many people well. In between sizes and different contours as between a left and right foot forces many purchasers to make compromises as between fit and fashion. Further, even if a relatively comfortably fitting shoe is found, normal fluctuations in body weight and water retention can alter the characteristics of the wearer's feet from day to day so as to render an otherwise comfortable shoe uncomfortable.
There have been many attempts to combine the benefits of fashion, function, economy and comfort. However, it is all too often the case that in meeting one or more of these criteria, compromises have to be made in other attributes. Even if a wearer is fortunate enough to find the right combination it is often short lived, due to the ever-changing fashions.
At least one approach to economy has been the idea of interchangeable parts for shoes. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 2,395,767 to Sutcliffe sought a more economic method of construction for women's shoes by employing inexpensive materials for the soles. In seeking to overcome the difficulties of securing an upper to the sole, Sutcliffe provided pegs or anchors with enlarged heads which project laterally outward of the vertical plane of the sole. A laced upper was secured to the anchors. The entire sole had to be rigid so as not to be distorted by the pull of the upper along the upper peripheral edge of the sole. Aside from the limitations in comfort inherent in the construction, there were many negatives from a fashion point of view. The limited number of studs limited styling; the bulk of the studs, the thickness of the sole and the fact that the studs projected laterally outward of the sole made the shoes unacceptable for all but the most casual of wear.
In U.S. Pat. No. 2,469,708 to Alexander the use of different lacings for fashion versatility was suggested. A plurality of eyelet members were pivotally secured along the side edges of the soles. The eyelets served as anchors for lacings which were passed through selected ones of the eyelets and around the foot of the wearer to create a sandal. Like Sutcliffe, hardware extended beyond the perimeter of the relatively thick sole structure. U.S. Pat. No. 2,976,623 to Galloway was another example of affixation means for foot covering elements, using limited numbers of securement tubes about the perimeter of the sole.
Still others have suggested other manners of attaching lacing arrangements to the sole. See, for example Peterson, U.S. Pat. No. 2,680,309 and Ellis U.S. Pat. No. 2,862,311. In both of these patents transverse slots were made in the sole or sole extensions and lacings threaded therethrough. Ellis' try-on slipper, not being subjected to the abrasion of walking exposed the lacings to the walking surface. Peterson's beach sandal provided a laterally extended portion beyond the normal perimeter of the sole with anchors along this extended portion, thus severely restricting the styling which can be achieved.
However even with the many problems in constructions and an apparent limitation of styling, the desire to employ releasably engaged uppers appears to have been great. See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 2,761,224 to Gardiner and U.S. Pat. No. 3,204,346 to Lockard et. al. which employed relatively complex arrangements of tracking and T-members; U.S. Pat. No. 2,368,314 to Marx which employed channels and anchors; U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,153,968 and 3,154,866 to Loutbahn which employed either buckles and snaps, fasteners or flanges and strip fasteners to attach the uppers to the soles; U.S. Pat. No. 2,367,092 to Blotner which employed an oversize sole and the securement of lacings outward of the area which the foot occupies; and U.S. Pat. No. 2,509,335 to Dadesman which embedded transverse channels in the sole through which ribbons can be threaded.
Common to these prior attempts were limitations in styling, lace positioning or the ability to create a dress look compatible with business or social wear.